Zhuchengtyrannus strikes

Well you knew it was coming right? Yes Zhucheng does now meature a mounted Zhuchengtyrannus. Or rather inevitably, more accurately, it features a T. rex mount with the maxilla and dentary replaced with cases of the holotype. This is quite clear on the photos below as the added parts are of rather better quality and have been pained a little differently too. OK, so otherwise this is basically just another rex mount but forgive me for liking it. And it is in the process of absolutely mashing a juvenile Shantungosaurus, so what’s not to like?

A random query – morphologically, was the Zhuchengtyrannus holotype closer to the equivalent bones in Tarbosaurus or to those in Tyrannosaurus? Obviously it wouldn’t be a foolproof way of determining the better mount to modify, but if it was skewed more towards one than the other, you’d think that would be the one they would choose.

Of course, it is likely to be a moot question, as I daresay they chose to modify a Tyrannosaurus mount purely because there are more of those around, compared to Tarbosaurus!

Yes I think the moust choice is 100% availability. In terms of differences, in the paper we reported more differences to Tarbosaurus than T.rex but that’s in part becuase we went looking for them. Rexy is a few thousand miles away on another continent so no chance of confusion there, and Tarbo is in nearly the same time and place. As I recall though in terms of total differences it was as distant from one as the other.

No and we never will be for waht we have right now. ZT is defined exclusively from the skull, so with the presence of a second taxon there is no reason at all to refer any given element to one species or the other, unless it is associated with diagnostic skull remains. That’s not true for anyhting we have right now, so it’s all ‘unknown’.

Well I’m rather ambivalent until I’ve seen the material (which with luck will actually happen on Monday….).

I guess in theory it could be, but I generally doubt it. Whatever the issues over it’s exact provenance, it’s not from anywhere near Zhucheng so (based on our current knowldge) there’s no reason to think it could be.

Indeed, I think the skull are AMNH 5027. I am interested of the forelimb elements – they are not like the those in the AMNH mount (AMHN 5027 fossil preserves no forelimb elements). And it is so appalalingly they cannot put the scapulae/coracoids as close together as they should!